Des Browne: My hon. Friend puts her argument clearly. Enabling people in countries such as Afghanistan to enjoy a quality of life and to be governed in a way that they manifestly want to be will guarantee our long-term security. Future generations in the United Kingdom will be much safer if countries such as Afghanistan and other places that had became ungoverned space—places that could be used as training grounds for terrorists and that gangsters and others could maraud around—become more stable and settled.
	We face a problem in getting that across to the people of the United Kingdom, although I never find any difficulty in explaining the narcotics issue on the streets of my constituency. People understand the heroin issue clearly, because it is present in their communities. However, part of the problem in getting the argument across is that we need better to describe the end state that we believe we can allow the people of Afghanistan to take forward themselves. Part of that is substantially dependent on engaging more women in the decision-making process in such countries. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.

Peter Kilfoyle: Although I take issue with the Secretary of State on the wisdom of our continued presence in Afghanistan, I am sure that we both agree that our troops on the ground are doing excellent work and that we must seriously consider their welfare and morale. Has he received reports of, for example, forward units in Helmand spending 40 days on ration packs and it not being possible to resupply them? Is that the case, is the Secretary of State aware of such reports, and if so, what does he think that does for the morale of the soldiers?

Des Browne: I can, of course, confirm that exactly the opposite has happened—thus far. I make that qualification because I recognise that the situation is very fragile and that it is very important that the negotiations between General Mohan and those others who seek to exercise political power and economic influence in southern Iraq are sustained. We can create the opportunity for such negotiations and discussions to take place, but we cannot be a party to them, as they are for Iraqis to sort out between themselves. As long as progress is being made in that regard, the relationship that I have described will be sustained.
	We hear constant predictions that things are about to melt down in Iraq, but it is always possible, at any stage in the transition, that things will go either right or wrong. Many people out there know that it is a fifty-fifty bet and so always opt for pessimism, on the basis that that gives them a 50 per cent. chance of being right, and being able to say, "I told you so." Thankfully, however, our judgments are a bit more sophisticated than that. At the points of transition, we do not take any step unless we are assured that we are doing so in the context of preset conditions, measurements and tests that we have agreed with others.
	Until now, we have managed to make the progress that we have planned for, and broadly within the planned time scale. At each step, we have told the House and the country what the next stage of the plan would be, but I am not complacent: I know that we face a volatile and fragile set of circumstances, and that many people do not have the best interests of the UK or the Iraqi people at heart. In their briefings to me about what is going on in the operational theatre, many military commanders have told me, "You have to remember, Secretary of State, the enemy get a vote too, and we don't control that."
	Thus far, therefore, our actions have been correct, but we must not be complacent. In the interests of the Iraqi people, and of our people too, we have to recognise that we must take the same care when it comes to the next stage of the process.
	We cannot debate defence without addressing the threat of terrorism, which can emerge from abroad or at home and manifests itself against both armed forces and civilians. Its method is indiscriminate killing. Its aim is to promote an extremist ideology. As a Government, we are committed to tackling that threat at every level—its fundamental values, its spread to the disaffected, its planning, actions and representation. To do so requires hard power, to minimise the actions of terrorists, and soft power to minimise intent and recruitment.
	The military play an important role in countering terrorism and British forces are working to that end as I speak, both at home and across the globe. Through capacity building we help other nations bolster their defences and contribute to the international effort.

Liam Fox: What the public will see is this: for losing limbs or major organs, someone would get a maximum of £285,000 plus a guaranteed-income pension, while someone working as a civilian who got a wrist injury would get a much larger sum and probably be back at work and able to generate their own income within a relatively short time. The public do not appreciate that discrepancy or the legalities that are being put forward—they view one as overly generous in relation to the other. I hope that the Government understand that when they finally review the matter, because the public perception of the fairness of the treatment of our armed forces is extremely important.
	Let me turn to a matter that has recently been raised in the press: the treatment of military personnel in hospitals in the United Kingdom. Having visited the field hospital in Iraq, where our personnel are treated magnificently and not a single person has contracted a case of MRSA, I find it amazing that Private Jamie Cooper, the youngest British soldier to be injured in Iraq, is now back in Selly Oak with a C. difficile infection and two MRSA infections. We have to do an awful lot more as regards the quality of the medical care that is given. In general, the quality of care is superb, but surely something is very wrong when a field hospital can manage to have minimal infection levels, but on coming back to the UK our military personnel find that having fought off the enemy in Iraq they are having to fight off infections in the national health service of the world's fourth richest country. Something is very wrong with a medical system that allows that to happen.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making me very angry. I have visited Selly Oak, and it is nothing short of shameful for him to denigrate the hard-working staff there. If he actually read the newspaper article about the case that he mentions, he would see that the consultant said that the reason why the individual contracted the disease was that he had a stomach wound and that the condition related to that, not to dirty hospitals.

Bruce George: No, let me first outline what I am going to say.
	If the Opposition want to demonstrate that they are capable, they must show that they are different from the Conservative party that I have observed in my 34 years as a Member of Parliament, mostly in opposition. If one cannot get much from the future—from what might happen, according to the Opposition's proposals—one is forced to revert to the past.
	The Opposition's past is even more dispiriting than their proposals for the future. One gains the impression from listening to the hon. Member for Woodspring that the Conservative party is the SAS of Opposition defence teams, confident in its abilities and its history. One would also believe that the Government were somehow the descendants of a semi-pacifist or pacifist Labour party led by Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Frank Allaun and Ramsay MacDonald, who ended up as a Conservative. Neither of those extremes is true.
	The Government have been accused of all sorts of things, such as cutting defence expenditure. If the Opposition want to talk about cuts, they should consider the template under the Thatcher and Major Governments. Most of the increase in Government expenditure went on replacing kit lost during the war against Argentina. The previous Labour Government—Fred Mulley was Secretary of State—promised that we would commit ourselves to a 3 per cent. real increase in defence expenditure. Labour did that—the cut came under Michael Heseltine. If one looks at the chart of defence expenditure and what the Library has produced—I do not want to embroil the Library research department in a political argument—one sees that the statistics are clear. The picture of Tory defence expenditure, following a little spurt after the Falklands war, is: drop, drop, drop, drop, drop until the Defence Committee, then led by a wonderful Conservative Chairman, the late Michael Colvin, argued that Government expenditure was projected to fall to 2.2 per cent. Therefore, before too many rocks are thrown about any failings, I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will look at the many Defence Committee reports that were published during his party's period in office.
	Charges have been laid against the Government on Defence Medical Services, but just look at what the Defence Committee said about hospitals in "Defence Costs Study No. 15". It said that the situation was appalling and that the cuts had gone so far that it doubted whether medical services would ever recover. That was a Tory-led Defence Committee.
	The Tory-led Defence Committee said in 1996 that defence cuts had gone so far that if they proceeded in the same direction the defence of the realm would be severely endangered. I advise the shadow Secretary of State to look at my A to Z of Tory procurement foul-ups—the word "foul-up" was suggested when my first word was deemed inadvisable by the Clerks. All I am saying is, yes, we have made mistakes, but, on balance, this is not the Labour party of the early 1980s. This Labour Government have behaved, if not impeccably and perfectly, then in a way that has defended this country's interests well, and they will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Woodspring does neither himself nor his party any good by imagining that we are a party of extremist troglodytes who have somehow found their way into office and are now doing their best to undermine the security of the state and the welfare of our armed forces.

Bruce George: I am not sure whether to thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, as he is only half proud of what we did. One thing that we did was appoint better advisers than the Mood's, and we gave the MOD a rough time. However, we recognised that much had happened with compensation and other forms of benefit.
	Much has been done, but more remains to be done. We can never be absolutely happy until members of our armed forces who have been injured are properly compensated, regardless of whether they were injured while facing the enemy, in peacetime operations or while serving at home; we owe them a debt of honour. They must be properly compensated not only so that we can be happier about that and our consciences can be clearer, but so that more people will be prepared to join the armed forces.
	We must examine how our defence forces are evolving, the equipment we are purchasing, the training we are doing, the alliances of which we are a part, and whether our Government are displaying political wisdom in respect of our allies and potential adversaries—we hope that they are. In doing so, we must move beyond the immediate future. I recall Ministers such as Archie Hamilton—a great guy—coming before the Defence Committee, and our saying, "Minister, you are thinking about the fact that the Soviet Union has now collapsed, but is the threat to the UK over? Why are you rushing to cut regiments? Why are you cutting defence expenditure? History teaches us that, regrettably, war is sometimes inevitable."

Don Touhig: The public will judge the Conservatives' reaction on that day; I have no doubt that a harsh judgment will be made on that party.
	The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan has meant that we are asking servicemen and women to do more than ever before, placing greater demands on them and their families. In return, therefore, we have to take on board an even greater duty to support them. I have always held the view that joining the armed forces is not like taking a job at Barclays bank or Tesco. Those who volunteer to serve their country are joining an organisation that may require them to put their life on the line, as has so tragically happened in Iraq and Afghanistan these past few years. In return for their commitment, it is our duty to ensure they are well motivated, well trained, and equipped and protected to do the job that we ask of them. That is our true covenant with the armed forces.
	In return for the service that our forces give, Britain owes them only the very best. I am talking not simply about the best training and equipment, but about the best accommodation and support for them and their families. It is important that families are given support.
	When I served as a defence Minister, my mission statement was simple: we will value our servicemen, servicewomen and their families, our reserves, cadets their employers and their families, our veterans, their widows and their families, and we will do everything in our power to demonstrate that. That idea should run throughout our approach to our support for the armed forces.
	I could not speak of the value agenda without mentioning the campaign by veterans who fought in Malaysia to be allowed to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. I have tabled early-day motion 356 on that and hon. Members on both sides of the House have generously supported it. However, we have to do more. We have a duty to honour the commitment of the 35,000 of our boys who fought in the jungles of Malaysia. They earned that medal and they have the right to wear it. A greater degree of honour falls on them than on the members of the honours and decorations committee who are resisting the legitimate request to wear that medal. I wonder how many of those who serve on that committee served in the jungle. Probably the only jungle they know is the jungle around Whitehall.
	The value agenda should run right through the whole of our forces, from cadets to veterans, and even beyond, to our service families. Service families are very important. They really are the rock on which our people rely for support. If the families back home are happy, content and supported, the boys whom we deploy in many theatres of conflict are happy, too. Like everyone else, our servicemen and women cannot give their best in operations if they are worried about things at home. So it should be an absolute priority that servicemen and their families have the support and help they need and deserve.
	The absolute cornerstone of that is service accommodation. Armed forces personnel and their families deserve decent accommodation. Those serving must be secure in the knowledge that their families are housed in accommodation on a par with the very best on offer in Britain. While I know that the MOD is committed to improving accommodation, and some £700 million has already been spent on housing and other living accommodation, much more needs to be done.
	I occasionally smile to myself when I hear present—and yes, former—senior defence chiefs calling for more to be done to improve service family accommodation. I pressed for that, as a Minister in the MOD between 2005 and 2006, but I do not recall receiving any support from those individuals. Indeed, it was Ministers in the MOD who expressed the greatest concern about service family accommodation, not the senior officers.
	I believe that the MOD plans to spend £5 billion in the next decade and that will help, but I have one piece of advice for my successor, who takes a very real interest in this matter. He should watch his back when it comes to determining priorities. He will have to fight his corner for funding for service family accommodation, and he will find his opponents pretty formidable.
	There is no quick fix. The legacy of underfunding inherited from the previous Government means that we are tackling shortcomings that will take considerable time to resolve. It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to claim the moral high ground on the issue when it was their policy of slashing the defence budget that led to service family housing being in the poor state of repair that it is in now. Indeed, there is no more pathetic sight than the Tories trying to pitch their tent on the moral high ground. When it comes to our armed forces, they had no idea when in government and they have no credibility now. Their record speaks for itself.

Don Touhig: I am coming to an NAO report now. MOD officials appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on 28 January 1998 and they were asked whether spending constraints under the previous Government had prevented improvements to housing stock. They said yes. Who asked the question? It was none other than the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the present shadow Home Secretary. Contrast that with the record of this Government on spending and investment in the armed forces. We are reversing the legacy that the Conservatives left. We now have more than 20,000 new or upgraded single-living accommodation spaces and 20,000 more are planned. In this financial year, the accommodation of 900 service families will be upgraded, and there is more to do.
	I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will take a closer look at an idea that I examined when I was a Minister. Today, many service families aspire to own their own home and we must to do all we can to help them achieve that. We could perhaps give them a grant of, say, £30,000 towards their mortgage. That cost could be offset by savings elsewhere on other benefits. Alternatively, the Department could act as a guarantor for a certain proportion of any mortgage applied for. The Americans do that with their veterans, for example. One of the major advantages of such a scheme is that the lender is protected against loss and a favourable mortgage is obtained by the service family.
	The issue of home ownership will become increasingly important in the coming years as we move towards super-garrisons. It also extends choice to the services and meets a legitimate aspiration. The quality of service accommodation, alongside military pay and training, has a massive impact on recruitment and retention, which are the two great challenges facing us.
	Recruitment is an ongoing challenge. Our strong economy increases the challenge. I entered the House in 1995 in a by-election, and I remember that almost every door that I knocked on in my campaign was answered. In the last general election, hardly any doors were answered, because the area now has a strong economy and almost full employment. The forces now have to compete for recruits and show that joining is an attractive proposition.
	Retention is also an issue with some 20,000-plus people leaving the services each year. The skills that our servicemen and women gain during their time in the forces are desirable to those who run business and industry in the private sector. Imagine a married serviceman who has returned from a second or third deployment in the field being greeted by his wife. She will probably say, "Thank God you are back. I worried about you the whole time you were away. Now you have skills that you can sell outside in the private sector. The children are growing up and we are living in awful service accommodation." How can we retain those people in the forces? We need to do more, and the deployed welfare package does help with retention.
	Let us not forget that our forces were given the best public sector pay deal this year. In fact, armed forces salary growth has exceeded growth in the whole economy in all but one of the last five years. Contrast that with the record of the Conservatives who, rather than supporting our service personnel, cut the Army by 36,000 during their last five years in government. With that record, where is their commitment to our armed forces?
	T he hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, but is no longer in his place, was a little coy when pressed about what they would do on public spending if they were in power. I do not know why he was coy: he should take a lead from his leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who said in a webcast interview recently:
	"There is no magic pot of money we can dip into to spend...on our armed forces."
	There we have it. If the Tories were in power, there would be no more for the armed forces. As so often in the past, the Tories are long on promises, but short on delivery. The party that cut the defence budget by £0.5 billion a year between 1992 and 1997 has not changed at all. If, God forbid, they were one day elected to power, the outlook for the armed forces would be cuts, cuts and more cuts. Contrast that with the record of this Government—increasing pay, improving equipment, updating medical care and accommodation, and constantly seeking to improve the package available to veterans. The Government are committed to delivering for our servicemen and women, and long may that continue.

Eric Joyce: That is absolutely right. Indeed, a Patrick Barkham article in  The Guardian back in April dealt with this issue. Essentially, when the accommodation becomes surplus, Annington, which owns it, refurbishes it and sells it on. I might be wrong and the Minister might want to correct me, but, as I understand it, there is no formal mechanism by which those houses can be awarded to service personnel, or offered to them with some form of discount.
	In the case of RAF Coltershall, which was referred to in the newspapers, Annington agreed that half the houses would go to service personnel.  The Guardian cited the case study of a woman and her family who literally camped out for several days to get a house, because they were required to spend 22 of every 24 hours in the queue. Her husband was in Iraq, and in order to succeed—the price had not been confirmed—they had to queue up. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he winds up. Although this issue is not the MOD's responsibility, I hope that it can persuade Annington to look again at whether it is appropriate to have the families of service personnel camping in a field to get a surplus house.
	Before I came to the House tonight, I visited the website of Terra Firma, a powerful and successful private equity company that I would not criticise per se, and which put together this deal. As I understand it, the Nomura bank was the primary investor. However, it did not have that English, home counties twang, so Annington—the name sounded a bit more English, and a little more acceptable to some who objected at the time to a Japanese investment bank taking over MOD quarters—was chosen as the name of the vehicle. However, that is ancient history.
	I was interested to read how Terra Firma describes what it does, and why it is so successful as a private equity vehicle. We should bear it in mind that the following was written in 1996, after 17 years of Tory government:
	"Terra Firma focuses on businesses where our views differ from the market consensus. Companies that are out of favour, usually as a result of being neglected, under-managed or under-invested by their owners."
	That is the state that MOD housing was in at the end of the period of Conservative government. After years of neglect, the then Government sold off housing cheap, hoping to bolster their chances at the following year's election. That clearly did not work, but the last thing on their minds when they sold those houses and created the mess that we have today, which the Labour Government are doing their very best with, was the welfare of service personnel.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a number of excellent points about garrisons. There is a danger that the big garrisons that we inevitably have now will lead, if we are not careful and do not take appropriate steps, to a greater degree of insularity, in that fewer people in civilian life will have contact with service personnel. That is why the Territorial Army is so very important. The hon. Gentleman talked, as several other Members did, about the military covenant. We need to think of it not simply as a covenant between the armed services and the Government. It is about much more than that—it is about society and the way that society is.
	Earlier, I was fiddling around with my biro, wondering about its size. It is bigger than a 5.56 mm round, but a bit smaller than 7.62 mm ammunition. However, let us say that it is the same as the latter. Looking at it, one can see the sort of bullets shot at British service personnel by enemies across the world. That is why I prefer to call the military covenant "rule 762": it is easier and has a nicer ring to it.
	The term "military covenant" is one that people who are not acquainted with military language, acronyms and the oddities of the way we speak about service issues find hard to get their heads around. It means that service personnel—of all countries, as the concept is not confined to Britain—take extraordinary risks on behalf of their nation and that, in return, that nation honours them and looks after their unique needs. No one can argue with the concept, so the question is not whether we agree with it, but whether we observe it.
	The Royal British Legion campaign makes some valid policy points, although other elements are more arguable. Yet all hon. Members will agree that it makes an important philosophical point, and that it poses a question that society at large must answer. I do not want to sound too high minded, but I believe that all Members of Parliament, like many people outside, have a role to play in reminding the public of the extraordinary things that our service personnel do for our country. Every time people fiddle with a biro, they can use their imagination to remind themselves of the military covenant—or rule 762, if they prefer to call it that.
	Service personnel face extraordinary dangers on our behalf. The responsibility to ensure that that is remembered does not lie only with politicians or people interested in politics, but with society as a whole.

Andrew Murrison: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I enjoyed his general strategic overview, as well as his specific points about the DLO and defence attachés. I hope that the Minister will have answers to those questions at his fingertips when he replies. I declare an interest as a medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve, and I am in receipt of a naval pension. We have heard 14 Back-Bench speeches today, all of which had merit, even if in some cases one had to dig a little deep to find it.
	Ministers can surely be in no doubt that the military covenant has been broken. I appreciate the caveat that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) entered with regard to Scotland, but the Royal British Legion has felt it necessary to mount its "Honour the covenant" campaign this autumn, while a completely new organisation, the British Armed Forces Federation, was created this summer to lobby for a better deal for the service community. Unofficial forces websites have sprung up. I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the Army Rumour Service website—better known, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by its acronym ARRSE—which provides a free and frank window on the views of an increasingly dischuffed service population.
	In 25 years of service in the armed forces, I can never remember anything quite like this. It is important to acknowledge, however, that there have been times in our history when our troops have not been given the respect to which they are surely entitled. Rudyard Kipling described the plight of Tommy Atkins. Although Kipling's Tommy emerged in the 1890s, he is chiefly associated with our engagement in total war in two obvious fights for national survival. His descendants are involved in conflicts that are much more discretionary, and that do not command the support of the British public in anything like the same way.
	In my view, that means that the Government owe more than ever to today's men and women who are putting their lives on the line in pursuit of their foreign policy. That is all the more reason for disappointment at the attitude adopted by Ministers, captured perfectly by Mrs. Diane Dernie, mother of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, who said of injured servicemen:
	"They are simply figures on a balance sheet. They do not have any role, any function and the MOD wants to dispose of them as cheaply as possible."
	Meanwhile, Ben, even after Ministers have been shamed by public outcry into doubling his payment, faces a bleak future. No doubt the Minister will crow about guaranteed income payments, but on close examination those appear frugal, and for junior soldiers unrepresentative of potential future earnings. I am sorry if I detected a scoff from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence—he criticised me earlier in a rather crude intervention, if I may say so—but that is certainly the view of the service community. If he doubts that, I suggest that he look at the website to which I referred.
	It is difficult to see Labour's armed forces compensation scheme as anything other than a second-rate deal, which is inferior in important respects to elements of the preceding war pension scheme, imperfect though that undoubtedly was, and which uniquely attempts to swim against the tide of society's prevailing compensation culture. The formulaic way in which compensation is pegged ignores the fact that a broken body is so much more than the sum of constituent injuries. It addresses quality of life forgone in the most bludgeonly way imaginable and is untenable.
	The Royal British Legion is correct to point out, as we have, that the vast majority of personnel will simply not benefit from the changes announced on the hoof last week, and that the changes will not benefit those with a single devastating injury of the sort sustained by Lance Corporal Martin Edwards. As the Minister's announcement was, admittedly, by way of launching a consultation, I hope that he will listen to those with the best interests of servicemen at heart before finalising his plans; I say that in all sincerity. So far, those plans have been chaotic. We understood initially that an increase in retrospective payments was "highly unlikely". If that were so, people injured in Operation Telic I to IV would have found themselves at a financial disadvantage compared with people hurt post-April 2005. Clearly, that would be a nonsense, and we understand that the MOD has been obliged to change tack.
	The United States is often held out as the exemplar in delivering the military covenant. I simply do not know why America lauds servicemen in a way that we do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) touched on some of the possible reasons. I am realistic enough to appreciate that the attitudinal differences between our two countries mean that our servicemen will not be patriotically ushered to the front of queues or showered with cinema tickets. But the strand of care for those who have given extraordinary service, embodied in the GI Bill and the Veterans Administration, and extended this year in the inauguration of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, is indicative of our best friend's far more generous interpretation of the military covenant. I hope that the Minister will say what lessons he has learned from the US and how he intends to implement best practice here.
	Our armed forces are a mirror of the society from which they are drawn, yet increasingly their deal looks second-rate. What are they to make of compensation for the most severe battlefield injuries, reluctantly increased by Ministers to £285,000, against nearly £500,000 for an RAF typist with repetitive strain injury of the thumb?

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, but it does not move us much further forward. I seriously suggest that he listen to the British Armed Forces Federation and the Royal British Legion, and look at their websites. He should listen to them, not to me.
	I have to say that I am not surprised that the Royal British Legion thinks ill of an Administration whose armed forces compensation scheme is designed to shift the burden of proof in the MOD's favour, to narrow eligibility criteria and to impose onerous time restrictions on claimants? That is precisely what the scheme has done. I know Ministers mean well—I do not doubt that—but these are hardly the actions of Ministers who are falling over themselves to fulfil their side of the military covenant. In one of the most thoughtful contributions of the day, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) called defence the Cinderella of public services, and I fear that he is correct.
	A number of Members mentioned housing. When I was a practising doctor I had a fair amount to do with military public health, but I never thought that as a Member of Parliament I would visit barracks that were infested with cockroaches. One young man said to me, "I do not have to put up with cockroaches when I am at my mum's house, so I do not see why I should have to do so when I am living in barracks." What messages do conditions like that send to the men and women whom Ministers say they value so highly?

Bob Ainsworth: This has been a wide-ranging debate. I have always been aware of the level of expertise in the House on these issues, and I want to thank everybody for their contributions. It will not be possible for me to respond to every issue that was raised, but I will try to deal with as many as I can.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) treated us to a little bit of the history lesson that we have to listen every now and then in order to put into context some of the allegations that are made today. He did that very well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) talked about the debt that we owe to our servicemen and their families, and he was particularly concerned about accommodation. He recognises—even if some Opposition Members do not—that a huge building programme is going on, and that some of the legacy issues of our single-living and family accommodation are now being dealt with. That cannot be done overnight; the neglect went on for generations. There are Members in this House who know that, yet they choose to try to deny it. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that there are some big issues that we need to address, particularly in relation to family living accommodation and the right to buy. We are as concerned about and interested in those matters as he was when he did his job at the Ministry of Defence.
	I am sorry that I was not in the House for most of the speech of the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who talked mainly about procurement. I was a little surprised by her intimation that she is concerned that the Royal Navy is going to be dominated by the carriers. Yes, the carriers are going to be somewhat dominating features of the Royal Navy. If we want our Navy to have worldwide reach and the ability to project force around the world wherever we want it—be it air power or assault capability—the carriers and the protection force are the single most important way in which we will do that. That is why the carriers are so important.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) talked about the covenant and said that we have a debt to our armed forces that needs to be met. I do not disagree with him, and he knows that nobody in the ministerial team does. This is not just an issue for the Government. We need to recognise that we are paying back our armed forces for the tremendous sacrifice that they make for, and the capability that they give to, our nation. The nation also needs to recognise that. This is not an easy issue to address, and there are no quick remedies. It is not just a matter of parades, for example; we have to work on this. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and others in the House have said, we all have a responsibility to address this issue, to take it out to the public at large, and to ensure that we all do our best—irrespective of where we sit in this House—to connect the work being done on behalf of the nation by the armed forces with the general public, whose understanding is perhaps not all that it once was. With effort, perhaps we can make that connection again. The hon. Member for Canterbury also talked passionately about the Territorial Army, about which I know he has great concerns. I intend to sit down with him and talk through some of those issues as soon as I can.
	In a wide-ranging discussion, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) talked about a lot of issues. He, too, was concerned about housing, and particularly about the priority given to our armed forces by local authorities throughout the country. He asked whether we were prepared to meet him and a delegation of Members of Parliament—and we of course are. I do not suppose that he is concerned about whether it is most appropriate for me or for another member of the ministerial team to meet that delegation. One or other of us will be more than happy to make ourselves available for a meeting.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) talked about our relationship with the USA. However, he was also concerned to ensure that we should develop our co-operative capability with our European neighbours, and stressed the importance of that for the future. I agree with him in that regard.
	The fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) has certain problems was exposed in some of the interventions made during his contribution. If he thinks that he can cherry-pick the defence estate and imprint in Scotland, he will have to do some explaining—beyond this debate in the House—to the many people up there who depend on that work for their livelihood.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about cap badges and the history of the Scottish regiments. Of course we must honour our history, but we all know that we cannot live in it. Time moves on, and we must address the issues that face us today. There is a need for change, and although we must try to retain the golden thread that runs through our regimental history, we must also deal with the problems confronting our military in today's world.
	The hon. Member for North Devon talked about the situation in Iraq, and asked me to explain the statement that I made in evidence to the Defence Committee in July. He compared that with the recent statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I do not think that any explanation is necessary. I am not a military expert, and do not pretend to be. I would not come to the House and say otherwise, but the statement that I made to the Defence Committee was based on military advice given to me at the time.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not pretend to have military expertise either, but the military advice that we are given, and the situation that we face, have both changed. We are now able to consider the possibility of reducing our force level in Iraq, and to plan for it. Our forces will be backed up by other forces in the region, but the level that we will maintain will be lower than that which our military advice was prepared to contemplate in July.
	The hon. Member for North Devon also talked extensively about the situation in Afghanistan. So did my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), as well as other hon. Members. It is a matter that we must look at very seriously. Sometimes, the feeling is that our military personnel take a narrow view of the matters that they are dealing with, but my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North made it very clear that that was not true of the discussions that she had had out in theatre.
	The House should be aware that no one is more able to take a broad view of what people in the military are able to contribute than those people themselves. They know what they can do, and they also know what must come in behind them to ensure the nation building that has to happen if we are to render Afghanistan viable in the future. That is one of the tasks that face us, and our military people understand that as well as we do. In no way do the Afghan people want the Taliban back, but we must make sure that the growing capacity of the Afghan state is seen to be a force for good, a positive force that improves the lives of the people. A lot remains to be done, and it can be done only if we adopt a comprehensive approach.
	Equally, as various hon. Members noted, we must also ensure that our own people understand what we are doing in Afghanistan. The connection is not always made between what our armed forces are doing out there and the effect on the security of people and families here at home. All of us, regardless of which party we represent, have a responsibility to make sure that people appreciate that link. We must make people understand that what is happening in Afghanistan cannot be disconnected from security at home.
	Big issues are involved in that, and they must be fully explained and understood. However, there is a convergence between heroin, organised crime and international terrorism; it is a thread that runs all the way from Afghanistan to the streets of Coventry, and the streets of every town and city in our country. The elements cannot be disconnected.
	I have to tell the hon. Member for North Devon that it is not true that there are no dedicated helicopters for medical evacuation in Afghanistan. Dedicated helicopters are available in the field, as I saw when I visited Bastion, so if the hon. Gentleman has been given contrary information it is untrue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) gave us much information, as well as a vivid personal insight into forces living accommodation over the generations. He gave the lie to the idea that the problems can be solved overnight. There has been ingrained, systematic under-investment over a period of time. We have made structural changes to ensure that will no longer happen, but the problems cannot be fixed overnight.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) reacted as I did to the speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Of all the speeches I heard during the debate, the two from the Conservative Front Bench were the most extraordinary. The hon. Member for Woodspring showed that he was capable of applying himself to give us analysis and a constructive view when he talked about Iran. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was sitting on the Treasury Bench at the time, and neither he nor I could disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. However, almost all the rest of the speech that he treated us to was a catalogue of misrepresentation and abuse of the facts.
	That does not matter so much when what is said is about the Government. The hon. Gentleman deliberately and repeatedly tries to present the case that there are cuts in the defence budget. He tells people that in television and radio studios, and he told us the same thing today. He denies the fact that by the end of the current spending round, real-terms spending will be £3 billion, or 10 per cent., higher than in 1997. As some of my hon. Friends pointed out, our record is in marked contrast to that of the Government the hon. Gentleman supported, who introduced defence cuts year on year during the back end of their period in office.
	What the hon. Gentleman says in that vein is part of the cut and thrust of politics. People do not always use facts when they are throwing politics around in this place; we misrepresent the facts and make accusations against people from time to time. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to attack civilian volunteers in theatre and, more importantly, said things about the medical facilities at Selly Oak. I think he needs to reflect on what he said, and the allegations that he made today.
	I visited Selly Oak on Monday. I talked to parents, patients, nurses, doctors and the military personnel who run that facility. I can tell the House that they are sick and tired of being used as a political football. They are angry about that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woodspring cannot be in the Chamber now, because I would be saying exactly the same thing to him if he was. Today he made allegations about a particular case. I will not go further. I say only this: the hon. Gentleman should read what the surgeon who dealt with the individual had to say, and he should look at the press release issued by the hospital tonight. Given that he has an expertise in this area—I am not going to attempt to second-guess medical capability—he should reflect on what he said and how he said it, and the allegations that he made.

Jimmy Hood: There may be resistance from institutions that need to accept when we have all collectively failed to protect children better. The police force is one of those institutions from which there will be mixed responses. A  Scotland on Sunday article quoted a senior police officer as saying:
	"I think our primary function is to protect children, and anything we can do to achieve that should be tried. The last thing we want is to make Scotland a soft option for paedophiles."
	My hon. Friend may be concerned about responses from the police force in his constituency, but I am sure that there are also police officers who share the views of that senior police officer in Scotland.
	I was expressing my concern that Scotland could become a haven, respite, resting place or hiding place for sex abusers. Ironically, last year Jack McConnell, the former First Minister, indicated his support for such measures for Scotland, and in an article in  The Times of 6 November, the headline read, "Scottish law could drive paedophiles into England". The First Minister had gone on the record in supporting similar measures proposed by the Home Secretary on 30 June, six months before he made that statement. The irony of the situation post-30 June is that headline in  The Times could be reversed if Scotland's children are not given the same protection as in England and Wales. It could read, "Westminster laws could drive paedophiles into Scotland".
	I am sure that the Scottish Justice Minister does not want or intend that to happen. I am equally sure that the Scottish Parliament will want to give maximum protection to Scottish children, as in the rest of the UK. I was comforted today, when my office spoke to the Scottish Executive, to be advised of their awareness of the need to have the same controls on both sides of the border. I hope that the Minister can assure me that she is determined to ensure that the Home Office and the Scottish Executive are singing from the same hymn sheet and that when we legislate we have the same protection for children throughout the UK.